Spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a multi-center randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Nonoperative management of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) includes activity modification, medication, injections, and physical therapy. Conventional physical therapy includes a multimodal approach of exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities. There is a paucity of evidence supporting the use of spinal manipulation and dry needling as an adjunct to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine the effects of adding thrust spinal manipulation and electrical dry needling to conventional physical therapy in patients with LSS. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center, parallel-group clinical trial. PATIENT SAMPLE: One hundred twenty-eight (n=128) patients with LSS from 12 outpatient clinics in 8 states were recruited over a 34-month period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included the Roland Morris Disability Index (RMDI), Global Rating of Change (GROC), and medication intake. Follow-up assessments were taken at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either spinal manipulation, electrical dry needling, and conventional physical therapy (MEDNCPT group, n=65) or conventional physical therapy alone (CPT group, n=63). RESULTS: At 3 months, the MEDNCPT group experienced greater reductions in overall low back, buttock, and leg pain (NPRS: F=5.658; p=.002) and related-disability (ODI: F=9.921; p<.001; RMDI: F=7.263; p<.001) compared to the CPT group. Effect sizes were small at 2 and 6 weeks, and medium at 3 months for the NPRS, ODI, and RMDI. At 3 months, significantly (p=.003) more patients in the MEDNCPT group reported a successful outcome (GROC≥+5) than the CPT group. CONCLUSION: Patients with LSS who received electrical dry needling and spinal manipulation in addition to impairment-based exercise, manual therapy and electro-thermal modalities experienced greater improvements in low back, buttock and leg pain and related-disability than those receiving exercise, manual therapy, and electro-thermal modalities alone at 3 months, but not at the 2 or 6 week follow-up.

Clinical Guidance to Optimize Work Participation After Injury or Illness: The Role of Physical Therapists.

Work rehabilitation refers to the process of assisting workers to remain at work or return to work (RTW) in a safe and productive manner, while limiting the negative impact of restricted work, unemployment, and work disability. The primary purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to systematically review available scientific evidence and provide a set of evidence-based recommendations for effective physical therapy evaluation, treatment, and management of individuals experiencing limitations in the ability to participate in work following injury or illness. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(8):CPG1-CPG102. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.0303.

Spinal Manipulation and Electrical Dry Needling in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of spinal thrust manipulation and electrical dry needling (TMEDN group) to those of nonthrust peripheral joint/soft tissue mobilization, exercise, and interferential current (NTMEX group) on pain and disability in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, multicenter parallel-group trial. METHODS: Patients with SAPS were randomized into the TMEDN group (n = 73) or the NTMEX group (n = 72). Primary outcomes included the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale. Secondary outcomes included the global rating of change scale (GROC) and medication intake. The treatment period was 6 weeks, with follow-ups at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 3 months. RESULTS: At 3 months, the TMEDN group experienced greater reductions in shoulder pain and disability (P<.001) compared to the NTMEX group. Effect sizes were large in favor of the TMEDN group. At 3 months, a greater proportion of patients within the TMEDN group achieved a successful outcome (GROC score of 5 or greater) and stopped taking medication (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Cervicothoracic and upper-rib thrust manipulation combined with electrical dry needling resulted in greater reductions in pain, disability, and medication intake than nonthrust peripheral joint/soft tissue mobilization, exercise, and interferential current in patients with SAPS. The effects were maintained at 3 months. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(2):72-81. Epub 28 Aug 2020. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.9785.

Mobilization and Manipulation of the Cervical Spine in Patients with Cervicogenic Headache: Any Scientific Evidence?

Cervical mobilization and manipulation are frequently used to treat patients diagnosed with cervicogenic headache (CEH); however, there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of these manual therapy techniques. The purpose of this review is to investigate the effects of cervical mobilization and manipulation on pain intensity and headache frequency, compared to traditional physical therapy interventions in patients diagnosed with CEH. A total of 66 relevant studies were originally identified through a review of the literature, and the 25 most suitable articles were fully evaluated via a careful review of the text. Ultimately, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria: (1) randomized controlled trial (RCT) or open RCT; the study contained at least two separate groups of subjects that were randomly assigned either to a cervical spine mobilization or manipulation or a group that served as a comparison; (2) subjects must have had a diagnosis of CEH; (3) the treatment group received either spinal mobilization or spinal manipulation, while the control group received another physical therapy intervention or placebo control; and (4) the study included headache pain and frequency as outcome measurements. Seven of the 10 studies had statistically significant findings that subjects who received mobilization or manipulation interventions experienced improved outcomes or reported fewer symptoms than control subjects. These results suggest that mobilization or manipulation of the cervical spine may be beneficial for individuals who suffer from CEH, although heterogeneity of the studies makes it difficult to generalize the findings.